Clinical study of self-etching and total-etching systems for esthetic restoration of anterior teeth with vital pulp

目的 比较两种粘结剂Adper Single Bond2和Xeno Ⅲ用于活髓前牙牙体缺损复合树脂充填修复的术后敏感情况及充填修复效果.方法 124颗患牙随机分为两组,全酸蚀组使用酸蚀剂、Adper Single Bond 2行复合树脂充填,自酸蚀组使用Xeno Ⅲ行复合树脂充填,术后1、7、30d复诊,评价术后敏感发生率；1年后复诊,评价充填修复效果.结果 术后1d,自酸蚀组敏感率明显低于全酸蚀组,差异有统计学意义(x2=6.105,P=0.047)；术后7d(x2=2.667,P=0.264)、30 d(x2 =1.177P=0.555),两组敏感率差异无统计学意义.1年后自酸蚀组充填修复的成功率明显高于全酸蚀组,差异有统计学意义(x2 =4.459,p=0.035).结论 自酸蚀粘结剂Xeno Ⅲ术后敏感度低;术后1年,Xeno Ⅲ的粘结充填修复效果优于Adper Single Bond 2.     

自酸蚀粘结剂与全酸蚀粘结剂修复牙本质缺损的术后敏感性比较

目的比较自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂修复牙本质缺损术后敏感情况,评价自酸蚀粘结剂对减轻术后敏感的效果。方法选择99例患者(257颗患牙)随机分成两组,实验组(135颗患牙)使用3M Adper Easy One自酸蚀粘结剂,对照组(122颗患牙)使用3M Adper Single Bond2全酸蚀粘结剂,两组都用3M-Z350纳米复合树脂充填。临床观察时间为术后1 d、1周、3个月。结果术后1d、1周,实验组敏感发生率和敏感度明显低于对照组(P<0.05),术后3个月两者无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论自酸蚀粘结剂比全酸蚀粘结剂能在术后短期内有效降低牙齿敏感性。     

自酸蚀和全酸蚀粘接系统对复合树脂修复术后敏感的影响

目的探讨自酸蚀及全酸蚀粘接系统对复合树脂充填术后敏感的影响。方法需行Ⅰ、Ⅱ类洞修复的患牙120颗,抽签法随机分为6组,每组20颗牙;常规预备洞型;各组分别使用自酸蚀粘接剂：FL．BOND、Adper Prompt、Clearfil SE BOND、Xeno、ONE-UP BONDF和全酸蚀粘接剂Prlmer＆Bond NT粘接,行复合树脂充填,术后1、7、30、90d复诊,评价术后敏感的发生率及敏感程度。结果术后敏感的发生率各组间无统计学差异;术后1、7d全酸蚀Primer＆Bond NT组术后敏感程度明显高于其他各自酸蚀组,各自酸蚀组问无明显差异;术后30、90d各组间术后敏感程度均无显著差异。结论全酸蚀粘接剂在术后7d内导致的术后敏感程度明显重于牙本质自酸蚀粘接剂,术后30d全酸蚀粘接剂与自酸蚀粘接剂均较少引起术后敏感。     

五种牙本质粘结系统微拉伸强度的比较

目的比较不同类型自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统的粘结强度,为临床应用提供参考。方法选择4种自酸蚀粘结系统Clearfil S3Bond,i Bond,Clearfil SE Bond,XenoⅢ,1种全酸蚀粘结系统Single Bond2,用微拉伸法测试这些粘结系统的粘结强度并进行比较。结果全酸蚀粘结剂Single Bond2的微拉伸强度最高,与自酸蚀粘结剂粘结强度有显著差异（P〈0.05）。自酸蚀粘结剂i Bond,S3Bond,XenoⅢ两两之间粘结强度无显著差异（P〉0.05）。SE Bond的粘结强度显著高于i Bond,S3Bond和XenoⅢ（P〈0.05）。结论第五代牙本质粘结剂具有较强的粘结强度,但第七代牙本质粘结剂临床操作更为方便。     

自酸蚀粘接剂Adper Easy One的临床研究

目的评价一步法自酸蚀粘接剂Adper Easy One一年复诊期内的临床效果。方法临床选择有2颗恒磨牙面洞的患者27例,按随机数表选择其中一颗牙使用Adper Easy one自酸蚀粘接剂(自酸蚀组),另一颗牙使用Scotchbond酸蚀剂及Adper Single Bond2粘接剂(全酸蚀组),两颗牙均充填Filtek Z350树脂。术后即刻、1周、半年及1年复诊评价术后敏感,并按USPHS/Ryge标准评估充填体情况。结果自酸蚀组1例发生术后敏感,全酸蚀组2例发生术后敏感,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。全酸蚀组1例充填体边缘不完整,自酸蚀组所有病例充填体边缘完整,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。所有充填体颜色匹配、解剖学形态、表面质地均在1年复诊期内保持良好,未发生洞缘变色及继发龋。结论一步法自酸蚀粘接剂1年复诊期内术后敏感发生率低,临床效果保持良好。     

自酸蚀和酸蚀-冲洗粘结剂对Ⅰ类洞复合树脂充填的2年临床评价

目的:评价酸蚀-冲洗粘结剂和自酸蚀粘结剂在后牙I类洞修复中的临床效果。方法:共25名后牙患龋的患者入选了本次临床试验。每位患者随机接受了至少2颗后牙I类洞的修复,68例患牙随机分为2组,实验组采用自酸蚀粘结剂+复合纳米树脂修复(Adper Easy One+Filtek Z350,3M ESPE)38例,对照组使用全酸蚀牙本质粘结剂+复合纳米树脂修复(Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Z350,3MESPE)30例。在充填后即刻、术后6个月、1年和2年时,根据改良的USPHS量表,从保存率、术后敏感、颜色匹配、边缘染色、边缘完整性、解剖形态、继发龋和表面质地7个方面对每个修复体都进行评分。结果:在复查的2年内,全酸蚀和自酸蚀组的保存率分别为100%和90.6%,其他各项指标亦均无显著性差异。结论:自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂用于修复后牙Ⅰ类洞均可获得较理想的临床效果。     

CarisolvⅢ化学机械去龋法对牙本质黏结强度影响研究

目的 探讨化学机械去龋制剂CarisolvⅢ对牙本质黏结强度的影响。方法 收集2014年3—6月在中国医科大学口腔医学院口腔颌面外科门诊因各种原因拔除的龋坏恒磨牙40颗,将每颗牙齿沿龋洞中心纵剖为两部分（即为两组,每组40个样本）。CarisolvⅢ去龋组：采用CarisolvⅢ化学机械法去龋;机械去腐组：采用慢速球钻去龋。将两组再各自随机均分为两组,分别用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结剂和Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结剂黏结,然后用3M Z350光固化复合树脂分层充填。制作各样本的微拉伸试件,测试微拉伸黏结强度并进行比较分析。结果 CarisolvⅢ去龋组的微拉伸黏结强度：采用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统为（19.50 ± 6.83）MPa,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统为（24.35 ± 7.97）MPa。机械去腐组的微拉伸黏结强度：采用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统为（18.10 ± 7.55）MPa,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统为（23.50 ± 8.33）MPa。采用相同黏结系统的两种去龋方法的微拉伸黏结强度比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;而同一种去龋法,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统的微拉伸黏结强度高于3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统,差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论 CarisolvⅢ化学机械去龋法能够获得与机械去腐法同样的牙本质黏结强度。     

Carisolv��ѧ��еȥȣ������������ǿ��Ӱ���о�

目的探讨化学机械去龋制剂CarisolvⅢ对牙本质黏结强度的影响。方法收集2014年3—6月在中国医科大学口腔医学院口腔颌面外科门诊因各种原因拔除的龋坏恒磨牙40颗,将每颗牙齿沿龋洞中心纵剖为两部分（即为两组,每组40个样本）。CarisolvⅢ去龋组：采用CarisolvⅢ化学机械法去龋;机械去腐组：采用慢速球钻去龋。将两组再各自随机均分为两组,分别用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结剂和Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结剂黏结,然后用3M Z350光固化复合树脂分层充填。制作各样本的微拉伸试件,测试微拉伸黏结强度并进行比较分析。结果CarisolvⅢ去龋组的微拉伸黏结强度：采用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统为（19.50±6.83）MPa,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统为（24.35±7.97）MPa。机械去腐组的微拉伸黏结强度：采用3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统为（18.10±7.55）MPa,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统为（23.50±8.33）MPa。采用相同黏结系统的两种去龋方法的微拉伸黏结强度比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;而同一种去龋法,采用Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀黏结系统的微拉伸黏结强度高于3M ESPE自酸蚀黏结系统,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论 CarisolvⅢ化学机械去龋法能够获得与机械去腐法同样的牙本质黏结强度。     

自酸蚀粘结剂在楔状缺损修复中的临床评价

目的：比较自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂在楔状缺损粘结修复中的效果。方法：25例楔状缺损病例,38对患牙,采用自身对照方法左侧使用自酸蚀粘结剂Xeno Ⅲ,右侧使用单瓶粘结剂Prime＆Bond T,均应用复合体Dyract修复。1年后随访,根据改良的USPHS／Ryge临床评价标准对修复体进行盲法评价。结果：1年后随访率达95％。XenoⅢ组36个修复体中有33个修复体保存,保存率92％。Prime＆Bond NT组中有32个修复体保存,保存率89％。两组修复体的保存率和脱落率经统计学处理没有显著性差异。结论：自酸蚀粘结剂在楔状缺损粘结修复中具有较好的临床效果。     

应用可靠性分析方法比较自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂与人牙本质的粘结性能

目的：对各种不同操作方法的典型自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂的粘结可靠性进行体外评价。材料和方法：在223颗人离体牙牙本质平面上分别应用下列牙本质粘结剂：自酸蚀两步法粘结剂：AdheSE（AH）．Clearfil SE Bond（CL）．OptiBond SE（OS）;自酸蚀一步法粘结剂：Adper Prompt L-Pop（ADP）．Adper Prompt（AD）,Xeno Ⅲ（XE）;自酸蚀多合一粘结剂：iBond（IB）：全酸蚀三步法粘结剂：OptiBond FL（OF）：全酸蚀两步法粘结剂：Gluma Comfort Bond（G）,Excite（E）,Prime＆BondNT（PB）,之后,用微填料复合树脂Opticor New堆塑树脂块,在37℃的蒸馏水中放置24h后检测剪切强度。应用方差分析处理测量结果（统计因素为粘结剂和粘结剂类型）．随后通过组间一致性的Fisher分析（α=0.05）进行比较。采用二参数韦伯分布法计算临界剪切强度,系统可靠性取值为失败率5％。结果：方差分析显示各粘结系统呈现以下三组剪切强度的差异,各组平均剪切强度间的差异有统计学意义（P〈0001）AH=CL=OS=G=E=OF〉AD=IB=XE〉PB=ADP．但各组之内的全酸蚀粘结剂与自酸蚀粘结剂之间的差异无显著性（P〉0.48）。韦伯分布显示的对应粘结强度范围为12．1～241MPa,韦伯模量在21～83之间．临界剪切强度为30～160MPa。结论：临界剪切强度的显著不同提示所检测粘结系统可靠性的变异,这是源于粘结剂的化学成分不同．而非粘结剂的类型。     

全酸蚀与自酸蚀粘结系统与正常牙本质粘结强度的比较

目的本研究选取了3种知名品牌的全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂,比较其与正常牙本质的粘结强度及相同品牌树脂粘结剂与不同品牌树脂粘结剂的粘结强度。方法选择60颗新鲜拔除的人第三磨牙,去除牙合面釉质层,随机分为12组,选用3种品牌全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂Excite、AdheSE;Prime&BondNT、XenoⅢ;Singlebond2、Adper Prompt,分别应用于暴露的表层牙本质上,再用树脂恢复牙冠。将牙齿片切成横截面积约为1mm2的长方体状样本,检测其粘结强度。结果结果显示Excite与AdheSE、Prime&Bond NT与XenoⅢ、Singlebond2与Adper Prompt之间的粘结强度无显著差异(P>0.05),Prime&Bond NT、Singlebond2与TPH树脂,XenoⅢ、Adper Prompt与TPH树脂粘结强度无显著差异(P>0.05);Prime&Bond NT、Singlebond2与Z-250树脂,XenoⅢ、Adper Prompt与Z-250树脂粘结强度无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论全酸蚀/自酸蚀粘结系统与正常牙本质间的粘结强度无显著差异;不同品牌间的粘结剂和树脂一起应用不影响其粘结强度。     

Microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesives to primary enamel and dentin

The purpose of this study was to assess bond strength of three self-etching and two total-etch adhesive systems bonded to primary tooth enamel and dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted primary human molars were selected and abraded in order to create flat buccal enamel and occlusal dentin surfaces. Teeth were assigned to one of the adhesive systems: Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE. Immediately to adhesive application, a composite resin (Filtek Z250) block was built up. After 3 months of water storage, each sample was sequentially sectioned in order to obtain sticks with a square cross-sectional area of about 0.72 mm2. The specimens were fixed lengthways to a microtensile device and tested using a universal testing machine with a 50-N load cell at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength values were recorded in MPa and compared by Analysis of Variance and the post hoc Tukey test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: In enamel, Clearfil SE Bond presented the highest values, followed by Adper Single Bond 2, AdheSE and Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, without significant difference. The highest values in dentin were obtained with Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and all other adhesives did not present significant different values from that, except Adper Prompt L-Pop that achieved the lowest bond strength in both substrates. Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond 2 presented significantly lower values in enamel than in dentin although all other adhesives presented similar results in both substrates. CONCLUSIONS: contemporary adhesive systems present similar behaviors when bonded to primary teeth, with the exception of the one-step self-etching system; and self-etching systems can achieve bond strength values as good in enamel as in dentin of primary teeth.     

不同自酸蚀黏结系统对窝沟封闭剂黏结强度的实验研究

目的:评价不同自酸蚀黏结系统对窝沟封闭剂剪切黏结强度的影响.方法:将24颗正畸拔除的前磨牙随机分为4组,以1种两步法自酸蚀黏结剂Clearfil SE Bond(A组)和3种一步法自酸蚀黏结剂XenoⅢ(B组),Adper Prompt(C组),Tokuyama Bond Force(D组)分别与3M Concise窝...     

不同黏接系统应用于乳牙复合体修复的研究

目的探讨不同黏接系统应用于乳牙复合体修复后,对边缘密闭性、操作时间、操作复杂程度的影响。方法乳磨牙牙冠制备成薄片．表面制备Ⅰ类洞。分别应用黏接系统SingleBond、XenoⅢ、iBond,模拟临床操作,记录时间。温度循环法模拟体内状况处理样本后,扫描电镜观察。并行染料渗透实验。单盲法对二维微渗漏情况进行观察。结果黏接系统iBond的边缘密闭性方面明显差于XenoⅢ与SingleBond黏接系统（P〈0．05）。XenoⅢ黏接系统操作时间明显少于SingleBond与iBond黏接系统（P〈0．05）。结论自酸蚀黏接系统XenoⅢ能取得与全酸蚀黏接系统SingleBond相同的密闭性．同时缩短操作时间、减少操作的刺激性,白酸蚀黏接系统iBond边缘密闭性差,操作复杂、时间长。     

Bond strength of newer dentin bonding agents in different clinical situations

This study compared the tensile bond strengths of different adhesive systems to different dentinal substrate conditions. The adhesive systems used were Adper Single Bond 2 total etch, XP Bond total etch, and two all-in-one adhesives, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Ninety-six intact human premolars extracted on periodontal or orthodontic grounds were collected and stored in 0.9% physiologic saline for less than four weeks. Teeth were carefully cleaned to remove the soft tissue remnants. The occlusal surfaces were ground until the level of the dentinoenamel junction, exposing superficial dentin using a low-speed diamond disc. A standard smear layer was produced by wet sanding the dentin surface with 600-grit silicon carbide sandpaper for 40 seconds. The 96 specimens were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin and divided into four groups of 24 each based on the dentin bonding agents used. Each group consisted of 24 specimens, which were further divided into two subgroups of 12 specimens each, moist dentin and dentin air-dried for 10 seconds. The regions of interest for adhesion were demarcated in each sample using adhesive tape, with a 4-mm–diameter hole isolating the peripheral region, and each adhesive system was employed. Four adhesive systems, two total etch and two self-etching adhesive, were applied to different dentinal substrates as per the manufacturers' instructions. Following the adhesive application, the specimens were restored with composite material using a metallic mold measuring 5 mm in diameter and 5 mm in height to keep the material in cylindrical form and were light cured per manufacturers' instructions. After being stored for 24 hours in distilled water at room temperature, the specimens were thermocycled for 550 cycles at temperatures ranging from 5°C to 60°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds in each bath and a transfer time of five seconds. The tensile bond strengths were determined using a Universal loading machine (Lloyd Universal Testing Machine) at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. On moist dentin, total-etch adhesives showed higher bond strength than did the all-in-one adhesives. Under the dry dentin condition, XP Bond exhibited significantly higher bond strength than did the Adper Single Bond 2 and two all-in-one adhesives, Adper Easy One and Xeno V.     

Effect of active pretreatment of self-etching primers on the ultramorphology of intact primary and permanent tooth enamel

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the ultramorphological changes after agitated and nonagitated application of self-etching primer systems on unground primary and permanent enamel. METHODS: Five self-etching primer systems were used: (1) Clearfil SE Bond; (2) Clearfil Protect Bond; (3) Adper Prompt; (4) Xeno III; and (5) nonrinse conditioner (NRC). Noncarious human primary and permanent incisors were collected and stored frozen until used. Intact labial surfaces were divided into 2 halves, applying the self-etching primers with (active application) and without (inactive agitation) using a microbrush within the times recommended by the manufacturers. Treated surfaces were further processed for ultramorphological evaluation under scanning electron microscope (SEM). RESULTS: All tested self-etching systems produced weaker etch patterns and less dissolution of enamel surface compared with acid-etched samples in both primary and permanent teeth. Except for NRC and Adper Prompt, agitation of the surface did not increase the etching efficacy. Clearfil SE Bond and Clearfil Protect Bond resulted in similar morphological features following application in either mode. CONCLUSION: While agitation of self-etching primers may improve etching efficacy, this effect appears to be dependent on the material used. Phosphoric acid produces well-defined etching patterns on intact primary and permanent enamel.     

Microtensile bond strength of current dentin adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application

PURPOSE: To evaluate the immediate microtensile bond strengths achieved with representative adhesive systems from each of the four current bonding approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resin composite was bonded incrementally to flat, midcoronal dentin from 33 human molars, using the adhesives (Adper Scotchbond MP; Adper Scotchbond 1; Optibond Solo Plus; Clearfil SE Bond; AdheSE; Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus; Optibond Solo Plus self-etching; One-Up Bond F; iBond; Adper Prompt L-Pop; Xeno III) according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. The bonded specimens were immediately sectioned into sticks and underwent microtensile bond testing either immediately or after 24 h. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and LSD tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between immediate and 24-h bond strengths (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed among adhesives (p = 0.001). The all-in-one adhesive iBond showed statistically lower values when compared to all the other adhesives. Adper Prompt L-Pop, Xeno III, Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus and One-Up Bond F, all self-etching adhesives, were significantly weaker than AdheSE, Optibond Solo Plus, Adper Scotchbond 1, Optibond Solo Plus self-etching, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Scotchbond MP, which did not differ statistically from each other. CONCLUSION: Microtensile bond strengths of representative adhesive systems from the four categories of bonding agents were not equivalent, with the lowest values recorded for the one-step self-etching adhesives. There were no differences in the bond strengths when measured immediately and after 24 h.     

Microleakage of self-etch primer/adhesives in endodontically treated teeth

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the coronal marginal leakage of endodontically treated teeth bonded with four self-etching adhesives and one total-etch adhesive system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The investigators prepared Class II cavities in 60 extracted human premolars. They performed conventional endodontic therapy using a resin-based sealer and gutta-percha points. They randomly assigned each tooth to a group receiving one of the following adhesives: Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), FL Bond (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), Single Bond (3M ESPE) or Xeno III (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany). They restored all teeth with resin-based composite material (Z250, 3M ESPE). Specimens underwent thermocycling and dye penetration and were sectioned longitudinally. The authors photographed the sections under a stereomicroscope. They transferred the images to an IBM-compatible personal computer for quantitative assessment of dye penetration using image analysis software. They analyzed data by means of Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P = .05) and evaluated two specimens from each group under scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: None of the tested self-etch adhesives completely eliminated microleakage. Dye leakage was restricted to the coronal cavity walls; it did not migrate toward the pulp chamber or toward the root canal. Single Bond and Clearfil SE Bond showed significantly lower dye penetration values at occlusal and gingival margins. CONCLUSIONS: The coronal sealing performance of the tested self-etch adhesive systems in endodontically treated teeth was material-dependent. The use of Clearfil SE Bond in such teeth can help achieve a marginal seal comparable to that achieved with Single Bond.     

Bond strength of composite to dentin using self-etching adhesive systems.

PURPOSE: To determine the shear bond strength to dentin of five newer-generation self-etching adhesive systems. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Flat bonding sites were prepared on 100 extracted human molar teeth with 600-grit silicon carbide paper, which exposed the dentin. The systems tested were: Clearfil SE Bond; Optibond Solo Plus Self-Etch; Xeno CF III; Tyrian SPE; and Adper Prompt L-Pop. Following application of each adhesive system, bonded assemblies of Z-100 were prepared using a gelatin capsule matrix (n = 20). Ten specimens in each group were debonded after water storage for 24 hours at 37 degrees C, and 10 were stored for at least 30 days, followed by thermocycling for 850 cycles between water baths at 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C, with a dwell time of 1 minute in each bath. Specimens were loaded to failure in an Instron Model 1123 testing machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Statistical analysis included a two-way analysis of variance (adhesive and time) and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: Mean shear bond strengths (MPa) at 24 hours were: Clearfil, 26.4+/-4.2; Optibond, 23.5+/-4.4; Xeno, 19.5+/-4.2; Tyrian, 16.5+/-3.7; and Adper, 15.3+/-3.3. Mean shear bond strengths (MPa) after storage and thermocycling were: Optibond, 27.5+/-5.7; Clearfil, 25.5+/-4.9; Adper, 21.5+/-3.3; Xeno, 20.4+/-2.2; and Tyrian, 19.2+/-6.4. Both adhesive system and storage time were significant factors affecting shear bond strength (P < .05). CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in the in vitro dentin shear bond strength among the self-etching adhesive materials tested. Water storage and thermocycling did not significantly degrade the shear bond strength of the materials in this study.